"Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless
controversies" (2 Tim. 2:23-25), Paul admonished the youthful Timothy,
cautioning vigilance, for there will ever be those "craving for
controversies and for disputes about words" (1 Tim. 6:4). Yet if you must
correct opponents, he added, then "do so in a spirit of gentleness."
(2 Tim. 2:25).

For many people today, it would appear that science and
religion are either in combat or incommensurable. Science purportedly has
displaced any use for religion or God. One well-meaning corrective offered in a
variety of forms is to replace the naturalistic metaphysics normally associated
with natural science with an alternative metaphysic more in tune with theistic
belief. Presumably this would save science from itself in some redemptive
fashion. Many related issues have contentiously arisen of late that require
attention, for misunderstanding abounds presenting a blockage to belief: a
scandalous impasse to believers and unbelievers alike. Typically part of the
difficulty is terminology. But there are also deeper sources of divisiveness
that lurk beneath the surface, since we are dealing here with matters that
involve the heart, will, and spirit of every person. It is precisely because
this situation transcends mere academic concern that I have felt compelled to
attempt to exercise the Pauline formula. Caring for science to me is an issue of
deep pastoral care. Yet all I can offer are some insights gained over years of
experience and academic learning ˇ perhaps "like a bridge over troubled
waters" as Paul Simon would sing ˇ to reach the heart, the hub of this
vexed matter.

Many, if not all, of the contending voices share concern for
establishing claims for Divine authority in both creation and Scripture. I share
these concerns. I also share concern for the facile dismissal of God as
irrelevant, so prevalent in the world today. I did not always have this
conviction, but learned the hard Pauline way. Of course, we need to help place
God back into people's minds, hearts, and souls. But to do this requires far
more in the way of prayer and patience and far, far less in the way of
intellectual agility and altercation. While I strongly sympathize with those who
see signs of intelligent design in the universe, it is simply not good enough to
lord it over those who, for one reason or another, fail as yet to see things in
this way. The head and the heart are very far apart. It has been said by
sages of old, as well as today, that "The Fool has said in his heart that
there is no God" (Ps. 14:1). In my own agnostic days, although I could not,
of course, grasp the deep meaning of it all with my head, I too was never a
proactive "heart-fool." So, although I share common cause with much of
the general thrust and sentiment voiced in various quarters, I feel obliged
gently to expose some points of confusion permeating this complex area of
interaction. For the resulting contention, to Satan's glee, is quite
counterproductive.

Let me highlight just a few of the points which are presented
here in a generic way without designating names or schools of thought.

1. Science is inherently opposed to religion.
It carries with it a presumption of agnosticism or even atheism. One implication
of this would be that most scientists are closet atheists.

2. Science espouses a naturalistic metaphysic
which only exacerbates the first point.

3. Science presumably could be corrected,
improved (redeemed as it were) if it were to replace this naturalistic
(allegedly atheistic) metaphysics with one more attuned to theism.

These three represent just a few of the minefields for
contention. Even a cursory reading of the current literature reveals vying
positions concerning intelligent design, creation and evolution, and many other
issues that are directly related. The July 1995 ASA meeting confronted, once
again, the vexed special issue of "missing" intermediate forms and
other complaints about evolution. I urge us all to transcend these details and
contentious alternatives, important as these may be in their own right, to
regain a sense of perspective. There is infinitely more at stake here than being
in the right about intelligent design and related matters.

This is a highly complex topic. Let me merely try to set out
aphoristically what I see as some salient points requiring attention. Then let
us hone in on why the entire matter is of such serious concern.

Aphorisms

Evidence is not self-evident or faith-neutral, but it
is subject to interpretation according to the belief patterns of the individual
or group.

The issues are explicitly not to be construed in terms
of science versus faith, but to be explained by assessing the underlying
faith-type presuppositions operative in every case ˇ whether theistic or non-theistic.

Choosing between design and lack of design is a matter of
belief, not of scientific knowledge or fact. Yet what we choose to
believe may miss the mark.

Natural science and its methodology must be distinguished
from what can be called "forensic science" which is more appropriate
for the art of persuasion and judicial interpretation of evidence. Natural
science, which deals with the general case, involves a style of thinking
incompatible with concern for the particular instance and special cases as might
typically be found in a court of law. Put succinctly, scientists and lawyers
don't share a common mentality.

Science deals with high probabilities. and so it ought
properly to abstain from conclusions involving accumulations or congeries of
improbabilities.

"Grace" has been defined by Peck as a "pattern
of highly improbable events with a beneficial outcome."

Some mysteries must remain forever beyond explanation.

Reasons for Serious Concern

To give a sense of overall direction, let me remind you of
what I mentioned about the road from the head to the heart. At the center of it
all is the difference between the God of creation and God as Redeemer. As
Christians, we might espouse the distinction primarily in terms of understanding
and awareness. Everyone, however, is not a Christian; many are not believers in
any god. Yet as Christians we believe that God created every person in his own
image and likeness. This has profound implications, it seems to me, for how one
is to discover from where he or she came. Whatever conclusions one may draw with
the aid of the intellect and reason, these will ultimately pale into
insignificance in the face of redemptive love. The fundamental level which ultimately
counts concerns potential encounters between each created person and his or
her Creator.

The crucial point is succinctly and most poignantly stated by
Simone Weil with her characteristic simplicity:

Until God has taken possession of him, no human
being can have faith, but only simple belief; and it hardly matters whether or
not he has such a belief, because he will arrive at faith equally well through
disbelief.

Encounters with the Creator God as God the Redeemer are
available to each person whether a scientist or not, whether religiously
inclined or not. Yet it is here that we discover just why we ought to care so
deeply about science, just as it is. The sense of awe which the findings of
genuine science proclaim clearly lends itself to the deeper encounter, whatever
formal belief state may be operative in a person at some particular time. We are
all groping for God, and science happens to be for some a handy and effective
way to grope! It is this view of science, as stepping stones along the path to
God that is so crucial, by which persons using their God-given reason and
intelligence may seek to enhance the innate sense of belief that they have in
their heart of hearts whatever they may profess outwardly.

The ranks of science are filled, I'd wager, with closet
Christians and believers of diverse sorts. Many a scientist has had his or her
own "foxhole" experience. Sadly, professional norms may exact a price
for those who forthrightly state their own heart position as a matter of true
witnessing. This, of course, in no way means that such a one should turn around
and encumber their science either methodologically or metaphysically with what
they have come to understand. A scientist who is a Christian is a scientist with
a wider perspective about the findings of science, as British Charles Coulson
pointed out. Such a one does not engage in a different kind of science from his
colleagues.

Instead of attempting to introduce an alternative metaphysic
into scienceˇas if one first had to be converted even to do
proper scienceˇit would be more beneficial to reflect again
upon the model of Coulson. It is the scientist as a person who gains the
wider perspective in virtue of his conversion. It is not science as a
discipline that requires some sort of redemption. To elevate, as it were,
science to some ethereal realm would ipso facto deprive sincere
individuals of science as their principal means by which to grope for God. If
such a strategy were effective, many who are as yet unable to switch over into
such a belief mode would be disenfranchised from even getting started on the
quest. Again, it is the scientist as believer who can see more and deeper into
the very same phenomena available to all scientists. It is this heightened sense
of awareness made possible by the personal response of the individual to God the
Creator now experienced as the God of Redemption that brings this about.

On a related point, it would not be helpful to pursue a sort
of hierarchy of science, as if the "regular" naturalistic science were
somehow inferior to a theistic science. This would do injustice to the
discipline and jeopardize its essential communal character. It is entirely
understandable that one theistically inclined would wish to share these insights
with nonbelievers. But the effort to be helpful is fraught with danger, for
again it removes from the unbeliever the very means available for groping. This
is a variation of the problem of conversion. Once a person has
"arrived" and has begun truly to believe, his highest wish is that his
friends should benefit and learn to share this perspective. One wishes to be
helpful so that others may see in this new and better way. However, it is not
helpful to try and force things. What is required is a great deal of patience
and humility to realize that God calls all persons to himself according to his
ways and timing.

There is yet another aspect of construing science, with its
inherent methodological naturalism, as somehow inferior or opprobrious. Things
are not always what they seem. The conclusions drawn by science on one level
common for all to understand do not necessarily rule out a deeper sense of
reality. By this I do not mean simply a game of hidden variables. Rather, it is
simply that God has created and is creating in his own time and in his own ways.
We are not privy to his ways. It is presumptuous and a non sequitur of
science to claim that God is not present and creating. But it would be
equally presumptuous to assert that by some source of insight or special
information, including Scripture, that we could know the real answers. Either
way it would be the height of prideful arrogance to claim to know the mind of
God the Creator. Even if we could somehow fathom the mystery of creation and
decipher the manifest intelligent design behind it all, what good would it bring
us on our pilgrimage? The pinnacle of such an adventure could at best yield a
variant of Deism, for we would still know only about creation ˇ the God of
Creation would allegedly be patent for the privileged ones. Well, yes and no ˇ
and more to the point, so what! The distance between the head and the heart can
be measured in megamiles and parsecs.

On our long journey home, all the head knowledge about the
God of creation simply pales in the light of the God of redemptive love.
Humility is essential, so too a heart open with responsive love. Neither
scientists nor religionists have the inside track on either of these virtues.
Every person is sought out in God's unique way. I wish everyone a profoundly
spiritual bon voyage. Please help take care of science, for it is the
very best "head start" that many of us could ever have along the way.